Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : OnSale Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zurdo who wrote (2768)	12/23/1998 2:20:00 PM
From: Islander	Respond to of 4903

Just saw a spread of one half point offer 63 1/4 bid 62 3/4.. pretty weird for a stock that has a trading volume of 3.4 million shares..somewhat perplexed..

To: zurdo who wrote (2768)	12/23/1998 2:25:00 PM
From: Islander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4903

Bids building or am I hallucinating? eom

To: zurdo who wrote (2768)	12/23/1998 6:00:00 PM
From: Rauf A. Adil	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4903

I sent in this email in response to the article in theStreet.com (http://fnews.yahoo.com/street/98/12/23/valley_981223.html ) that appeared on OnSale (ONSL). I am not a ONSL stock holder (neither do I own their competitors stock). But it has been my experience that whatever theStreet.com writes is just (bs)to say the least. Worse, they may actually be paid to write this stuff by Hedge fund managers and others in shady investment circles. Rauf ----------------------------------------------------- Usenet Newsgroups:: misc.invest.stocks, alt.invest.penny-stocks, misc.invest.technical, misc.invest.mutual-funds, misc.invest.options Referring to your article "Silicon Valley: Onsale's Emaciated Margins" in theStrret.com, ( fnews.yahoo.com ) it makes me wonder as to the purpose, intention and motive behind articles like these. Are you being paid by short sellers and hedge fund managers (like the one you mentioned in your article) to write this kind of crap? I have read articles in theStreet.com earlier. Some of them sounded weird, others such as the one on Sun Microsystems: " Against Microsoft even the Sun sets", were a result of poor or almost no understanding in areas of business management, electronic commerce, computer hardware, software, networking and other technologies that make up Sun's (and Microsoft's) business. Before writing about Onsale, you may do well to at least read and understand the newer technologies and inventory models that are taking shape. Cross enterprise supply chain management, electronic inventory (as opposed to physical inventory) that Onsale has started implementing among others. But writers at theStreet.com are that dumb variety who cannot even make out a client from a server. I can bet that many of them cannot make out an ethernet card from a modem. They are those whose idea of fixing hardware and software errors is to reboot the machine and hope the problem goes away. Their knowledge of business and management fundamentals is worse than that of even high school drop outs (this can very well be proven by having them take a business IQ test). They perhaps have nevenr seen or understand business plans, business models, marketing plan, and a bunch of things such as building supply and distribution channels, inventory management, operations management etc. that together make successful companies. Of course I am not a stock holder in Onsale and neither did I own Sun (SUNW) stock at the time the article on appeared. I bought SUNW stock just a few days after the article appeared and It has more than doubled since then and continues its rise. Judging by the way blank statements are made in these columns about companies without even a fundamental understanding of their business and the technology they are involved with, it makes me wonder, if either someone pays to have these articles written or the writers are plain dumb and stupid. Perhaps, the Street.com need a QA & release control department so that trash such as this gets dumped before it gets published. Rauf Adil

To: zurdo who wrote (2768)	12/23/1998 7:37:00 PM
From: Sabrejet	Respond to of 4903

Hey Z! My view on the mm's is that with such a small buy/ask size, they can push these stocks to any level they want. They keep the spread at whatever they want because the vast majority of orders are market orders. Very few limit orders. To push ONSL to say 100 takes no effort at all. How many large blocks do you see cross the tape? They can hide trades with a small float and claim it's just supply and demand. They accumulate at the lows, obviously, and eat many a trade to ensure no one delays the ride up. It's actually a classic money machine because there is no valuation model. Traders don't trade these on ANY fundamental analysis therefore there is no threat of say, overvaluation! Have you ever challenged a buy or sell order? It has always been improved for me because it's a gimmick. Don't rock the boat! The only way I see to beating them is go long and short. Use a cost average approach on the dips to protect the short. I've used it on ONSL and it's been quite interesting. Going long or just short is suicide,IMHO! I hope you can make a buck! sz